Statistical Mechanic wrote:Actually if we live long enough we will know.

But your "guess" was expressed a lot more strongly than you now say.

Perhaps I have changed my opinion without even knowing that I changed it. It has happened here before.

Look, where I'm from, a political leader who is unsucsessful in a general election generally gets tarred with the "loser" lable and is percived as being damaged goods. There are exceptions, yes, but those are few and notable. It is telling tnat one of the ones who did stay on, Joe Clark, had the knives come out for him after he remained as leader of his party, even though he had a major lead in the polls at the time!

Jeff_36 wrote:Perhaps I have changed my opinion without even knowing that I changed it. It has happened here before.

LOL I think that's what I'm trying do say!

Jeff_36 wrote:Look, where I'm from, a political leader who is unsucsessful in a general election generally gets tarred with the "loser" lable and is percived as being damaged goods. There are exceptions, yes, but those are few and notable. It is telling tnat one of the ones who did stay on, Joe Clark, had the knives come out for him after he remained as leader of his party, even though he had a major lead in the polls at the time!

So in a way I am guilty of projection.

I think the other point is this: Dickey in the second paragraph of his column seemingly equates a Macron victory with an end - or close to it - of Europe's prolonged crisis:

If he is elected Sunday, the effect on European and global politics could be enormous: a definitive end to what had seemed a wave of nativism and populism sweeping across the West; a huge setback for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s designs to divide and weaken European (and American) democracies; and a much tougher, more united European Union position as London tries to negotiate Brexit.

This is what I very much doubt (not the last point but the larger argument) - and Dickey at the end of his column contradicts this "optimism" with a more sober assessment of what Macron faces in office. Which in turn has consequences, of course, for not only France and Macron but for Europe, center-liberalism and right-wing populism. That's really what I am after: the danger of equating a debate, or voting, win with a heroic and triumphal end to the crisis.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Jeff_36 wrote:Ok, so now I can assure you both that Le Pen won't win the Presidential election.

As fo 2022: a million things could happen by then. Let's not predict the unpredictable.

Lol

As Statmec said, it was never about MLP becoming president. Still too early for her, but about measuring the strength of potential electorate.She did a bad debate, that is sure. It does not mean that Macron did a good one.Indeed 64% thought he was more convincing vs 36%But other studies show that 44.6% found reasons to vote for MLP on what they have heard during the debate vs 55.4% for Macron.The latest polls shows little change after the debate, MLP losing 1 point (it now stands at 39% vs 61% against 40%-60%) given the margin of errors, it is quite irrelevant.My estimation is based on the number of votes, and i have predicted (and still do) that MLP will get between 12.3 and 13 million vote, and that it will represent anywhere between 36 and 42% depending on the participation.

But on the regional level, she might find some consolation prices: She is expected to win in PACA ( Provence Alpe cote d'Azur) with 51.5%, that would be a first time ever. She also expect to score big in Northern France (Haut de France), losing only 49.5% vs 50.5%. , she will lose in the Great East 47.5% vs 52.5%, 45.5% in Burgundy...Now those scores are huge! It translate a problematic that goes well behind the Front National or Marine Le Pen.That means that MLP could perform very well in June despite her failure at the presidential, and send a substantial number of deputees at the Parliament.Now, if Melanchon confirms his dynamic. (and according to the latest polls on the subjects, he is considered the best representative of the LEFT, so Macron should take that into consideration for the legislative.

Macron can praise his God that Melanchon missed the second round by a mere 700.000 votes, he would have been crushed in the debate.

Anyway, as things goes, Macron could become the weakest president of the V Republic, and this will be an issue as he has promised huge reforms (most of them already unpopular, some guaranteed to send half the country on strike), promises that he might very be unable to keep. And if things keeps deteriorating, the "revolutionary spirit" will be over 50% much sooner than people think.

So i will focus on the capacity of the traditional democratic parties to rebound in June, on the candidates that En Marche will propose, and their capacity to seduce and or convince, on the determination of the "extreme electors" to stand behind their movements.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Actually if we live long enough we will know.

But your "guess" was expressed a lot more strongly than you now say.

Perhaps I have changed my opinion without even knowing that I changed it. It has happened here before.

Look, where I'm from, a political leader who is unsucsessful in a general election generally gets tarred with the "loser" lable and is percived as being damaged goods. There are exceptions, yes, but those are few and notable. It is telling tnat one of the ones who did stay on, Joe Clark, had the knives come out for him after he remained as leader of his party, even though he had a major lead in the polls at the time!

So i will focus on the capacity of the traditional democratic parties to rebound in June, on the candidates that En Marche will propose, and their capacity to seduce and or convince, on the determination of the "extreme electors" to stand behind their movements.

Thanks, good explanation IMO, at least helpful to me in understanding what I admittedly don't know a lot about.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

I think the other point is this: Dickey in the second paragraph of his column seemingly equates a Macron victory with an end - or close to it - of Europe's prolonged crisis:

Well, sometimes - especially reading some opinions on the debate - i wonder if some journalists do live in the same world as i do.The same way i wonder if others like Dicky here are not enjoying playing a bit of the conspiracy game. Yes i know i don't like it, but i was wondering what the reaction would be if one would change the name "Putin" into "CIA" or "Obama".

More seriously, just taking into consideration that a Macron win would erase all the problems, make the EU stronger, is more than silly, it is absurd. It assumes that France is the only problem, quickly forgetting that one had to cheat the presidential election in Austria in order to give the population a second chance to "vote right", ignoring that Hungary is teasing the European commission for years, ignoring that Greece hate probably the EU commissioners more than anyone else, that May would more than probably be reelected by a huge margin (whatever the polls say about the Brexit), that historical social welfare system are under threats in most countries...

More importantly, as many Journalists, he does not seem to know how the EU works, what its institutions are, and how big those are just inappropriate to the current conditions. The EU was not conceived to become what it is today. And it is out of control of most governments, if not all (yes that would include Germany). The main flaw is that it is impossible to reform: once a path is taken, it imposes itself on every members, forgetting that those members are democracies and therefore subject to change their opinions.

Macron last night promised to reform the directive on detached workers which has turned out to be one of the most scandalous directive ever. He lied, he cannot, even if he managed to convinced Germany, Italy, Spain, Benelux, that is everyone but Romania which is the great beneficiary...Romania has the same veto power as any other member. End of discussion.

The EU is now like a kind of Titanic, a huge vessels, that everyone has to admire, except that there are no one holding rudder. No one is in charge and in the capacity to change the course. In the end, it has become the more hypocritical multinational adventure of history, because those who are on board are just forced to like the ship, to repeat how great and how strong it is, that there is no alternative to it, so they proclaim - even without humour - that the EU is HISTORY. That what Macron told MLP, "you want France to "leave history""...right...Except that this is only the opinion of those in first class - big corporations, banks, international interests, governments and politicians - but the vast majority of the passengers are in "third class", and they are screaming "it stinks down here". And unfortunately, the crew has no solution as to upgrade those third class passengers is just impossible.

Meanwhile, the EU ship is heading slowly but surely right to the iceberg. But time has been saved, the orchestra on the upper deck can keep playing some more time while another succulent dinner is served, stocks owners will be pleased for another six months, or until the third class really gets upset.

As for the last debate, Macron seems to have gained only one point...what a triumph! says the press.

I've never really objected to Dickey's comments before - they're usually innocuous - but that particular article was really odd - and schizophrenic: by the end of it he had disproved his opening premise.

The Guardian is reporting that Macron has brought a defamation charge against Le Pen for an insinuation made during yesterday's debate:

Aides to Macron said on Thursday he had brought a defamation complaint against Le Pen after she said during the debate: “I hope that we will not find out that you have an offshore account in the Bahamas.”

Judicial sources told Agence France-Presse that Paris prosecutors had opened an investigation. “We will not hesitate to prosecute for defamation anyone who repeats this false information,” an aide to Macron said.

Le Pen’s comments were an apparent reference to a set of clearly forged documents circulating on the internet that linked Macron to a Caribbean bank.

Macron characterised the insinuations as “fake news and lies” from “sites, some of which were linked to Russian interests”. He told a radio interviewer that he never held a bank account “in any tax haven whatsoever”.

Le Pen said on Thursday she was not accusing Macron of having a secret offshore account. “Not at all. If I wanted to do so I would have done it yesterday. I’ve just asked him the question. If I had proof, I would have claimed it yesterday,” she told BMFTV.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Yeah...I was expecting the Pope, and Queen Elisabeth to take position after Obama...The French TV even managed to find a pure hard core pro Trump woman (with some politician affiliation but i forgot her name, "America first"?), the kind of woman any European would hate at sight, to declare "how impressed she has been by MLP during the debate."

It is a big surprise, indeed. Most of Varoufakis' comrades went for Melanchon's 'equal distances', with the argument 'Macron and Lepen, they are the same, voting for Macron only brings faster Lepen's policies in action and Lepen in power sooner afterwards'. I expected the (unpredictable usually) Yanis was in favor of the hard-liners, but as I see now, I lost (because he's unpredictable, I guess).

The non so popular point of view in Greek Left is the other one, 'we have to build an anti-fascist front', so Macron is one way road.

The latter was expressed very nice in this article by a respectable journalist (and friend of mine): He states very clearly that everyone who considers this election a 'pseudo-dilemma' works for the far-right practically.

Greece's Left has a painful history with such dilemmas, when they have to choose between a right-wing and a far-right-wing. As in 1952 elections. Only 3 years after the communists lost the civil war by General Alexandros Papagos army, in power was another General, the decent right-centrist Nikolaos Plastiras, who wanted reconciliation, releasing of the left prisoners (mostly resistants and partisans) and a stop to executions only for the reason someone was a resistant during occupation or a leftist. But Greece's illegal at the time 1947-1974 Communist Party (KKE) General Secretary Nikos Zachariadis transmitted through KKE's radio station from the 'Iron Curtain' the slogan 'what if Papagos, what if Plastiras'. Papagos won and a very oppressive hard-core far-right regime was established for 13 years, until 1964-1965, when another similar dilemma was put among the leftists: Shall we vote for the centrist Georgios Papandreou (Andreas's father) or he's the same with the Right? Papandreou won but he couldn't govern really, and then came the junta, the colonels' regime for 7 years.

So, this kind of discourse and this kind of 'trauma' stills exists in Greece's Left, and Yanis doesn't want to make things easier for the National Front, providing a first-rate service to the leadership of the Far-Right, since with the degradation of the parties it's not only the Left that loses, but Democracy loses as well.

Today, just before the end of campaigning, 9GB of emails from Macron's campaign, apparently hacked, have been released, posted by "EMLEAKS" to Pastebin. Macron's campaign has complained that "fake documents, mixed with authentic ones, were released together in an attempt to sow doubt and misinformation before voters go to the polls to choose the country’s next president in a run-off with Marine Le Pen" (France24). The government has refused comment.

Meanwhile Le Pen, dropping to 38% in recent polling, has defended her aggressive words and tone this week saying ominously that her "words are only the echo of the social violence that is going to explode in this country." (Reuters)

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

It is absolutely so amazing, so surreal, that everyone is considering it as normal.

By the way, thank for your post on the post-war Greek history. But despite the appearances, the situation is not the same today. One of the point in common, is that by this time, the threat of the Communist Party was a priority to fight everywhere in Europe. Why? Because back then, the Communist Parties were rightly seen as parties submitted to a foreign power: Moscow. And that was then considered unacceptable, even outside the context of the cold war, hence the struggle between the extreme left vs the nationalists (to which the center-right and even the center-left) gladly support.

Today the divide is both different and similar. The Nationalist are still fighting against the same enemy: international and foreign influence in their country, even if today this influence does not come from Moscow, but from Brussels (or Berlin for some), while the extreme left, like Melanchon is also a national movement that hope to get international alliance from the people of other countries, but there are no foreign power behind it.

That being said, what i mean by surrealistic, is what we have just been through. Surrealistic is the power of the media to impose new realities that are like taken as "normal": A former president of the USA taking a position in a national election! Even in normal time it would be surprising, States and governments usually refrain from doing so for obvious reasons.

In this specific case, thanks to a chat with a French friend, the case reach a all time high.

First because of the nature of the candidate MACRON. Usually, when you are or pretend to be an outsider, you are from the start considered as a "small candidate" (you probably never heard of the other candidates for the presidency like Lassale, Asselineau, Arthaud, Cheminade or Poutou...well it is normal because they represent or themselves, or a very small political party with no representatives, little affiliates, etc. For this reason, they do not have access to the media, written or television.In France, there is a regulation on how elections are organized included access to the media, which is of course essential to guarantee democratic election. The customary position of the CSA - the regulation body - is that access to the media should reflect your importance on the political scene, and a hierarchy is therefore being enforced. But for example, in previous elections, the CSA was attentive that the media remained neutral by imposing unofficially that if a paper dedicated a cover to one candidate, it also had to dedicated pages (if not the cover) to the most important opponents. This tradition assured that the media would not be tempted to promote a candidate at the expense of the political reality. So if the Figaro (right newspaper) made a cover promoting Chirac, Liberation (left newspaper) would do one with the socialist candidate, and the CSA was pleased. Had both the Figaro and Liberation made a cover only with let say Chirac, and no paper with the socialist candidate, then the CSA would have intervened.

Well the strange aspect here is that by all definition, Emmanuel Macron was one of those "small candidate", he has no political parties (hence no affiliates), no elected representation, nothing. In normal times, his name should have remained unknown to the planet, along the names of Poutou or Asselineau. Don't think that those name are just freaks, Asselineau is an "Inspecteur des Finances" (like Macron) who worked for president Mitterand, a position you get as soon as you leave the ENA (National school of Administration) created by Napoleon i think that grants you a high paid job in the high public administration not only for life, but also systematically...they are known as the "Enarque", Lassal is a representative (MP), etc. Macron may have been minister for two years, but this is not a criteria for determining if you are to be considered as a "first class candidates" (nominated by represented political parties) and "second class candidates" (from movement described above)

So how did we come to the situation where a former president of the USA chose to openly support him?

Well, one of the reasons is that the CSA closed his eyes from the start. The second class candidate Macron enjoyed 17.000 thousands articles in the press, 75 covers of the most important papers and magazine, and for the political channel BFMTV no less that 441 minutes of attention (compared to Francois Fillon, former prime minister and candidate of the "Les Republicains" (federation of the historical parties of the right) 191. (Hamon, PS, got like 90 minutes, and both Melanchon and Le Pen 60 minutes).I guess the word used in this case in the USA is HYPE.

I have heard a conference by Michel ONFRAY - probably the only French intellectual and "philosopher" i like and admire, the contrary to a CT loony, a very read and respected writer - who said that the Primaries of the socialist party have been rigged in a very strange way: a huge amount of fake ballots have been created to elect the less popular and the guaranteed loser of the candidates: Benoit Hamon! He was competing against Prime minister Emmanuel Valls, former minister Montebourg, etc.

The day after the socialist primaries, Valls broke his words (like in the US, all the candidates swore to support the winner) to join Macron (little second class candidate), followed by most of the members of the government, and most of the important personalities of the Socialist Party without any protest from the current President - de facto leader of the Socialist Party. The direct consequence is that the normal "first class candidate" representing the political party on Power, the one who logically should be supported by the president, became a "second class candidate" (therefore his score of 6.5%), while Macron - with no experience, no political party, no political experience, never elected not even in a small village - took his place among the "first class party".

This in itself is historical, unprecedented. Normally one would expect comments and reflections on it, but no except to highlight how exceptional it is, but that is it. In the same logic, not a single journalist has ever wonder where the money came from, and who dared to bet so many millions on a "second class candidate"? Because when it comes to finance, there are also regulations in France. Political parties receive public money according to their political importance (number of affiliates, number of elected representatives (Parliament, but also Regions, Districts, municipalities, and previous VOTES), by all those standards, "En Marche" has received ZERO EURO to fund its campaign, which also explains why the "second class candidates" have no chance: not only they receive no public fund, but expenses are only repaid if the candidates reached 5% of the votes).The use of public funds to pay for political parties - i have no idea if it is the case in the USA - are meant to limit "corruption" and "conflict of interests" and to guarantee the "independence" of the elected. That is the spirit, anyway.

So here we have a candidate, that should have been a "second class" defending some values, who started his campaign with no public money, but managed to lead a multi-millions national campaign and afford 75.000 articles in the papers, etc...So there was money, and big money (as a comparison, the "Les Republicains" (former RPR, UMP, UDF, etc) went into bankruptcy in 2012 after president Sarkozy loss, with a debt of like 30 million euros.- The Republicain has 278.000 affiliates!

So there must have been some nice and very generous people behind our little Macron to take such a risk, right?No comment. Without even laughing, Macron explained that he was receiving gifts from his fans, within the limit of the laws, like 30-50 euros each time."thank you for you answer", no more question asked. BY NO ONE!

Of course - and here comes my little CT - in order to give some sense to this experiment to succeed and not to end in some financial scandal. a victory is needed. not a good score, not a honorable performance...no only a victory would do.The only way to make it real?That the opponent is a bloody fascist of course.

By the end of 2016, MLP was ahead in all the polls you could think of: the greatest opportunity of all time. But then, if that was known, and given the horrible and terrible perspective of such a state of affair, the logic would have been that the political, civil societies, along with the media the press to attack the "horrible brown beast" from the start, in the way we have seen those last two weeks...but no, not at all.

Apparently the media started to destroy another, non fascist, candidates who was the only one at that time who could win against Le Pen (back then the polls showed that MLP would have beaten President Hollande by 53%-47% while fillon was like 68-32)...But of course, the "democratic consciences" in the Media (99% of the press of all kind) moved by the highest spirit of defending democracy launched a campaign against...Fillon, uncovering 10 years old "scandal" (used by everyone) that became the famous "peneloppegate" (Fillon while MP employed his wife as an assistance paying her - on public fund - 80.000$ a year, not moral, but not illegal by that time).

The future president Fillon soon plummeted in the polls, and the mediatic campaign ceased just like it started when he came down to 18%, and Macron took his place, although as a challenger as MLP was still ahead - with a lead that seemed untouchable then). She got her own "affair" some EU money used for her Party's staff (again everyone do it), but lightly.

Then came the unexpected, with Melanchon starting to rise, suddenly, meeting after meeting, he went from 11-12% to 19% and kept rising every day, bypassing Fillon, and clearly threatening MLP for the second place.The "democratic consciences" should have seen it as a good news, MLP losing her qualification for the second round should have been the news everyone expected, right? We would not have been so stressed during those 15 days, if she got humiliated losing the pole position in 2016, to the third in 2017.Then, maybe Jeff would have been right, and maybe Marine would have lost her support among her Party, while Marion is still way too young...so yes maybe the end of the "Le Pen" clan. It was a great opportunity to give a push to destiny and humiliate the far right, right?

Well no, two weeks before the first round, the media - until then very gentle with Melanchon - launched a full scale attacks, every day an article about his supposed links to Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, the demolition of his economic program in special edition in most of the main media, it does not ceased until the 22th of April, while absolutely ZERO articles have been issued against the National Front and MLP, barely a single word about her personal struggle with the Justice...zero, nada, niet.

MLP qualified with a mere 400.000 votes over Fillon, and 620.000 over Melanchon.MLP was saved, and free to get humiliated for the next two weeks by the very same "democratic consciences" now all calling to do everything that is possible to prevent the "fascist beast" from gaining power...ONLY NOW, we have to bow to some moral duty, while the very same beast could have been mediatically crushed before the first round, at a time she was not only leading a very bad campaign (she was so sure to qualify that she took it for granted, and acted poorly)...But then Macron vs Fillon or Macron vs Melanchon was a much more risky bet.Strangely the threat of the ugly fascist beast was not a priority before the 23 of April 2017.

But then would President Obama have taken position in favor of the little "ape" if he was competing against a "democratic" or at least "acceptable" candidate? Would he have intervened into a national presidential election if not against "the ugly fascist beast"?

But then, given that everyone but some lost drunk could affirm and bet his home on the fact that MLP had no chance for the start to be elected, but through some crazy mathematical hypothesis, why did he feel the need to break a custom, even more a historical and political tradition NOT to intervene in a foreign democratic process? When Obama made his speech, she was down to 38% (i know it is still high), thus disqualified?

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Today, just before the end of campaigning, 9GB of emails from Macron's campaign, apparently hacked, have been released, posted by "EMLEAKS" to Pastebin. Macron's campaign has complained that "fake documents, mixed with authentic ones, were released together in an attempt to sow doubt and misinformation before voters go to the polls to choose the country’s next president in a run-off with Marine Le Pen" (France24). The government has refused comment.

Meanwhile Le Pen, dropping to 38% in recent polling, has defended her aggressive words and tone this week saying ominously that her "words are only the echo of the social violence that is going to explode in this country." (Reuters)

LOLAnd seriously, one man has been arrested two days ago for hacking the MLP campaign account.

This fake news stuff is also amazing, like everything that pop up today. Who can say if a news if faked or not before investigating the case?Certainly Putin trying to rob the election one more time...

Balsamo wrote:By the way, thank for your post on the post-war Greek history. But despite the appearances, the situation is not the same today. One of the point in common, is that by this time, the threat of the Communist Party was a priority to fight everywhere in Europe. Why? Because back then, the Communist Parties were rightly seen as parties submitted to a foreign power: Moscow. And that was then considered unacceptable, even outside the context of the cold war, hence the struggle between the extreme left vs the nationalists (to which the center-right and even the center-left) gladly support.

Today the divide is both different and similar.

I'm confused by this. Historically, popular front refers to a coalition, including the communists, against fascists: "Greece's Left has a painful history with such dilemmas, when they have to choose between a right-wing and a far-right-wing. . . . [etc]"

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Balsamo wrote:By the way, thank for your post on the post-war Greek history. But despite the appearances, the situation is not the same today. One of the point in common, is that by this time, the threat of the Communist Party was a priority to fight everywhere in Europe. Why? Because back then, the Communist Parties were rightly seen as parties submitted to a foreign power: Moscow. And that was then considered unacceptable, even outside the context of the cold war, hence the struggle between the extreme left vs the nationalists (to which the center-right and even the center-left) gladly support.

Today the divide is both different and similar.

I'm confused by this. Historically, popular front refers to a coalition, including the communists, against fascists: "Greece's Left has a painful history with such dilemmas, when they have to choose between a right-wing and a far-right-wing. . . . [etc]"

Indeed, but Popular Front is not constituted by the Communists - and there is the left all the way to the center which the one that were submitted to dilemma. But the strongest forces among the left movements all across Europe was clearly the Communist Party - wich back then between 1945-53 or later in some cases, was clearly under the political direction of Moscow, which was the main handicap the left faced. Besides the official Party complying with the political lines from Moscow, there were dissident Trotkysts, Maoists, Castrists, etc...( most of the time regrouped under the appellation of "Anarchists").I did not want to diminish what Greece went through, of course - i actually gave a thanks to Keon for his post - but tried to make a link between his post and the current topic.Post war Greece had a special statius after WW2 - although i know much less than Kleon on that subject so i won't elaborate - it is no secret that the USSR wanted Greece, as much as the British did not want to give it to them, then later backed by the whole West...But indeed, there was a civil war that resulted from this "international competition" so to speak, or was exploited by the international context to be more precise. A kind of European "Vietman war" or a duplicate of the "spanish civil war".

Kleon is welcome to correct me, but the iron fist put upon the Greek people was encouraged by international interests. The Regime would not have afford the "iron fist" policy without foreign money from...the USA actually...

Now how the middle behave - between the more and less moderate left and the moderate to extreme right reacted, was of course influences by this situation.

Balsamo wrote:By the way, thank for your post on the post-war Greek history. But despite the appearances, the situation is not the same today. One of the point in common, is that by this time, the threat of the Communist Party was a priority to fight everywhere in Europe. Why? Because back then, the Communist Parties were rightly seen as parties submitted to a foreign power: Moscow. And that was then considered unacceptable, even outside the context of the cold war, hence the struggle between the extreme left vs the nationalists (to which the center-right and even the center-left) gladly support.

Today the divide is both different and similar.

I'm confused by this. Historically, popular front refers to a coalition, including the communists, against fascists: "Greece's Left has a painful history with such dilemmas, when they have to choose between a right-wing and a far-right-wing. . . . [etc]"

Indeed, but Popular Front is not constituted by the Communists

Still not following. The origins and usual meaning of popular front are to do with an anti-fascist alliance including the left.

Balsamo wrote: i actually gave a thanks to Keon for his post - but tried to make a link between his post and the current topic.

That is what confused me. I don't get the link you tried to make. Still don't.

I'll wait for Kleon's reply - maybe the point will become clear as you guys discuss it.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Balsamo wrote:By the way, thank for your post on the post-war Greek history. But despite the appearances, the situation is not the same today. One of the point in common, is that by this time, the threat of the Communist Party was a priority to fight everywhere in Europe. Why? Because back then, the Communist Parties were rightly seen as parties submitted to a foreign power: Moscow. And that was then considered unacceptable, even outside the context of the cold war, hence the struggle between the extreme left vs the nationalists (to which the center-right and even the center-left) gladly support.

Today the divide is both different and similar.

I'm confused by this. Historically, popular front refers to a coalition, including the communists, against fascists: "Greece's Left has a painful history with such dilemmas, when they have to choose between a right-wing and a far-right-wing. . . . [etc]"

Indeed, but Popular Front is not constituted by the Communists

Still not following. The origins and usual meaning of popular front are to do with an anti-fascist alliance including the left.

Balsamo wrote: i actually gave a thanks to Keon for his post - but tried to make a link between his post and the current topic.

That is what confused me. I don't get the link you tried to make. Still don't.

I'll wait for Kleon's reply - maybe the point will become clear as you guys discuss it.

Well, the only official Popular front, the one elected in France in 1936, was not constituted to exclusively fight fascism, but to pass reforms that were seen as necessary to restore the peace in the civil society.What we have here in France, the "thing" that is constituted whenever the far right is a threat is the "front Republicain" or "Republican front" or "democratic front" etc.

Hence i insisted that the example of Greece has little to do with what is at stake in France now.I personally don't understand Varoufakis brought his support to Macron, the same way i don't know why Obama did. But mystery is even greater with Varoufakis, as his conviction should oppose every fiber of his body to someone like him. But then, who knows, there might be an additional aid as a thank you. Maybe all this is a kind of scam to give the "golden boy" some international posture, legitimacy and importance, an importance he does not have actually as he has no background. Maybe it is just part of some communication scheme, essentially addressed to the French people, as the "golden boy" WILL become their president for the next five years.

Again, it is easy to make analogies, but Macron vs Le PEN is not like it would have been de Gaulle vs Petain... There is no civil war in france, only a social divide, but the roots of this divide are not ideological, even if there is an effort to present it like this. There is just no way to pretend that 13.000.000 people are suddenly nostalgic of "brown skirts marching in the streets"...that is just BS

What is really at stake in this election, and will be in the following one is the EU as it exists now...and therefore you can count on international interference in a process that should be "national". And therefore, MLP is the easy , the easiest, target, but Melanchon would have been a threat also, therefore he has been a target too.

I'm well familiar with ultra-left criticisms of popular front strategies.

As to the only "official" Popular Front, Kleon - and again I want to let him speak for himself - wasn't writing about France in the '30s but of the popular front strategy and Greece. And IIRC the official Comintern policy was the anti-fascist PF described in exactly those terms by Dimitrov.

Balsamo wrote:And therefore, MLP is the easy , the easiest, target, but Melanchon would have been a threat also, therefore he has been a target too.

Nope, but what is is the way that the whole situation was dealt with.It may sound as a CT, but it is obvious that MLP has been spared before the first round, what is new is all what i have summarized in the long post above. What took place has no precedent that i am aware of, that is the candidate of the traditional and democratic right has been crushed my a press campaign of a rare intensity.But i guess you did not follow by then.The fillon case is 10 years oldMLP is charged with fraud by the EU, for actions that took place those last years... but the latest was latest was almost forgotten,Why?

brown skirts" ? Wow, Petain was more liberal than I thought

Christ!!!!I was going to write that i really did not understand your post...And yes, i am getting blind and i cannot stand my glasses... Shirts /skirts just look the same to me on the screen...But do not underestimate the Scottish Fascist Movement...

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I'll wait for Kleon's reply - maybe the point will become clear as you guys discuss it.

Yes, I'd like to answer to what both Balsamo and Statistical Mechanic said and give a better insight on the historical context of Greek Left's stand on Macron-Lepen fight but it needs time. Difficult issues in general, although if I had to address them in Greek it would be easy for me, I guess, but in English, you understand, it takes effort

According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are

The last poll I saw put Macron at 62 and Le Pen at 38. The NY Times is reporting that significant activity on social media promoting the hack of Macron's campaign emails is pushed by familiar alt-right groups in the US. From HuffPo, a bit of CT encouragement from FN:

On Friday night as the #Macronleaks hashtag buzzed around social media, Florian Philippot, deputy leader of the National Front, tweeted “Will Macronleaks teach us something that investigative journalism has deliberately kept silent?”

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I'll wait for Kleon's reply - maybe the point will become clear as you guys discuss it.

Yes, I'd like to answer to what both Balsamo and Statistical Mechanic said and give a better insight on the historical context of Greek Left's stand on Macron-Lepen fight but it needs time. Difficult issues in general, although if I had to address them in Greek it would be easy for me, I guess, but in English, you understand, it takes effort

These issues are hard enough in one's native language!

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Researchers are saying that more so than right-wing Americans, bots are spreading the "news" about the Macron hack. This raises the question if machines talk to machines during an election blackout, and no one receives their tweets, did anything really happen at all?

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

- As anticipated, abstention is high, not as high as in the worst scenario, the participation stands at 65.3% at 5.00 pm French time. (it stood at 69.42% in the first round). Forecast are 73 or 74% at the end of the day.

It won't affect the global result, but it is noticeable to point that participation is very low in Paris and its surrounding, won by Macron in Paris and its surrounding: only 58.77%, Seine-Saint-Denis ( won by Melanchon) only 54.65%.Again, no real danger as MLP is very weak, but it could affect Macron the level of legitimacy.

Blank vote will only be known in one hour with the results.

5 years ago, Francois Hollande had been elected with a little more than 18.000.000 vote (out of 46.000.000 registered voters, abstention was around 20%, so out of 37.000.000 votes expressed (blank vote reached already 5%).

in 2017, there are 47.600.000 registered voters.35.200.000 are expect to vote (already less than in 2012)

As a result of this (FN not accrediting a number of news organizations for their post-election gathering), Le Monde and Libération will not cover FN's gathering either:

The Front National has chosen to exclude some French and international media from its election evening event on 7 May ... Le Monde forcefully condemns this attitude which does not allow proper coverage of a major democratic moment and shows a poor interpretation of press freedom. In solidarity with the media concerned, we have decided we will not be present at this election evening event. This decision will not prevent us from covering the Front National to the same journalistic standards.

Le Monde statement.

Turnout (~74% projected) looks to be lowest since 1969.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944